W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

RE: new cookie draft

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:22:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970323131927.22095A-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>


On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Yaron Goland wrote:

> Do we want to tight B up so that you always have to specify a port
> number? I would be suspicious of a cookie which doesn't know its own
> port and so has to ask the client to record it. Still, I like the
> proposal.

The client always has the port available. I think there will be quite a
few cases where the CGI program fabricating the cookie doesn't know the
server's port and possibly can't get it easily. So I think PORT w/o a
specific number has value.

Dave

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	David W. Morris [SMTP:dwm@xpasc.com]
> > Sent:	Sunday, March 23, 1997 11:07 AM
> > To:	Yaron Goland
> > Cc:	http working group
> > Subject:	RE: new cookie draft
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Yaron Goland wrote:
> > 
> > > Actually I suggested the exact opposite. If PORT is NULL then the
> > cookie
> > > may be sent on any port. It is only if a port is specified that
> > there is
> > > a restriction.
> > 
> > I think perhaps my syntax wasn't clear.  My intent was that three
> > cases
> > exist:
> > 
> >  a)   PORT attribute not specified, the attribute is NULL
> > 
> >       There are no restrictions
> > 
> >  b)   PORT attribute specified but with no value, the value NULL
> >  
> >       Only the source PORT may receive the cookie
> > 
> >  c)   PORT attribute with a value in which case the value is a comma
> >       delimited list of valid ports.  (e.g, PORT="80,443")
> > 
> >       Only the listed ports may receive the cookie
> > 
> > I think (a) and (b) are your proposal and I added (c) to allow more
> > precise control.
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > > 	Yaron
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From:	David W. Morris [SMTP:dwm@xpasc.com]
> > > > Sent:	Friday, March 21, 1997 10:21 PM
> > > > To:	http working group
> > > > Subject:	RE: new cookie draft
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, M. Hedlund wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Yaron Goland wrote:
> > > > > > We can
> > > > > > define an attribute "PORT", with no argument. If it is
> > included in
> > > > a
> > > > > > cookie then the cookie may only be returned on the port it was
> > > > received
> > > > > > on, this requirement applies to all domains. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That sounds right.  
> > > > 
> > > > An alternative ... a PORT attribute whose value is a comman
> > delimited
> > > > list
> > > > of ports on which the cookie may be returned. If the PORT
> > attribute is
> > > > omitted, any port is valid.  If the value of the PORT attribute is
> > > > NULL,
> > > > then as Yaron suggested, it may only be sent to the port it was
> > > > received
> > > > from. This allows it to be very tight while not excluding a value
> > like
> > > >  
> > > >                 port="80,443"
> > > > 
> > > > which would allow sharing beteen the default HTTP and HTTPS ports.
> > > > 
> > > > Note: While I am proposing a mechanism to resolve an issue, I
> > don't
> > > > share
> > > > the concern so I will be happy with any solution which allows
> > sharing
> > > > between ports.
> > > > 
> > > > Dave Morris
> > > 
> 
Received on Sunday, 23 March 1997 13:27:12 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:33 EDT